the tradition above-mentioned, must have had recourse to the homely harborage of a navdozelov or stabulum. This, in my opinion, removes every difficulty, and is perfectly consistent with every circumstance related by the evangelist. The place was not properly a stable, in our sense of the word, a house only for cattle, but was intended for supplying travellers, as to this day they are supplied in the East, with both stable and lodging under the same roof. Nor did it belong to what is called the xarάivua, the house allotted for the reception of strangers, with which it had no connexion. They were different kinds of what, in old language, were called hostelries, and quite independent on each other. By this explanation, without needing to recur to a cave without the town, (an hypothesis liable to some obvious objections), we can admit Wet.'s reasoning in all its force. "If," says he, "the manger was a part of the stable, and the stable a part of the Inn, he who had room in the stable had room in the Inn. When Luke therefore says, that there was no room for them in the Inn, he shows that the stable was unconnected with the Inn." The pains that have been taken by some learned men to furnish our Lord and his parents on this occasion with better quarters, I cannot help thinking, savors somewhat of that ancient prejudice called the scandal of the cross, which has clung to our religion from the beginning, and which, in the first ages, produced all the extravagancies of the Docetæ, and many others. This prejudice, wherever it prevails, displays a wonderful dexterity in removing, or at least weakening, those circumstances in the history of our Lord, which are, in the world's account, humiliating. It is an amazing conceit, in a man of Wet.'s abilities, to fancy that there was more dignity in our Lord's being born in a cave than in a stable; because, forsooth, the fables of idolaters represent Rhea as having brought forth Jupiter in a cave. "A cave," says he, "has something in it venerable and divine, whereas nothing is more despicable and rustic than a stable." "Antrum nobis aliquid venerandum et divinum: stabulum vero humile et rusticum repræsentat." To remarks of this kind, so unsuitable to the spirit of our religion, it is sufficient to answer in the words of our Lord, L. 16: 15. Τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑψηλὸν, βδέλυγ μα ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν.

9. "A divine glory," doğa Kvolov. E. T. "The glory of the Lord." It was a known figure among the Hebrews, to raise, by the name of God, the import of any thing mentioned to the highest degree possible. See the note on ver. 40.

14. "In the highest heaven," v viorois. E. T. "In the highest." It is not agreeable to the Eng. idiom to use an adjective so indefinitely, as the word highest, without a substantive, would in this place be. When it is employed as a name of God, the context never fails to show the meaning, and thereby remove

1

all appearance of impropriety. As the Jews reckoned three heavens, the highest was considered as the place of the throne of God. When we find it contrasted with earth, as in this verse, we have reason to assign it this meaning: the one is mentioned as the habitation of God, the other as that of men. This is entirely in the Jewish manner: "God is in heaven, and thou upon the earth," Eccl. 5: 2. "Thy will be done upon the earth, as it is in heaven," Mt. 6: 10. The plural number is used in the original, because the Heb. word for heaven is never in the singular. The only place in the O. T. where the phrase iv vviorois is employed by the Seventy is Job 16: 19, in which it is evidently used in the same sense as by the evangelist here.

2 "Peace upon the earth, and good-will towards men," inì yês εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. Vul. "In terra pax hominibus, bonæ voluntatis." The La. version is evidently founded on a different reading of the original. Accordingly, in the Al. and Cam. MSS. but in no other, we find sudoxias in the genitive. The Go. and the Sax. are the only translations which, with the Vul., favor this reading. Since the passage, as commonly read, admits a meaning at least as clear and apposite as that which we find in the Vul., and as the authorities which support the former are incomparably superior, both in number and in value, to those which favor the latter, it is plain that no change ought to be made. I do not think it an objection of any weight against the common reading, that the copulative is wanting before the last member. It would have some weight in simple narrative, but in a doxology such as this has none at all. The Sy. indeed has the conjunction prefixed to this clause as well as to the preceding; but as there is not for this the authority of any Gr. MS. it has probably been inserted by the translator merely to render the expression more complete. In the way the passage is rendered in the Vul. it is difficult to say, with any degree of confidence, what is the meaning. The most likely, when we consider the ordinary import of the words in Scripture, is that which may be expressed in this manner, 'Peace upon the earth to the men whom God favoreth.' The sense, however, it must be owned, does but ill suit the contex, in which the angels are represented as saying, that the good news which they bring shall prove matter of great joy to all the people. It ought surely, in that case, to have been said only to some of the people, namely, to those whom God favoreth. That none can enjoy true peace whom God does not favor, is manifest; but then, by the first expression, we are taught, that God, in sending the Messiah, favors all the people; by the second, that he favors only a part. Though these different sentiments may perhaps, on different views of the subject, both be justified; yet, as there is nothing here to suggest a differ ent view, the most consistent interpretation is the most probable.

The peace of good-will, which bishop Pearce has proposed in interpreting the words, is an unscriptural, and I even think unnatural, expression.

19. ".Weighing," ovμßáhlovoa. Vul. Er. Zu. Be. "Conferens." Cas. to the same purpose," Perpendens." Elsner has produced a number of examples from Pagan authors, to prove that the word ovußálovoa may be here most fitly rendered into La. "Mentem eorum probe assecuta," having attained the understanding of them. He is in this followed by Palairet; only the latter prefers rendering the word more simply, intelligens, understanding them. Raphelius has shown, that if we were to inspect the places whence Elsner's examples were taken, we should find, both from the sentence itself, and from the context, that the verb is at least as susceptible of one or other of these significations, to weigh,' to compare,'' to conjecture,' as of that which he gives it. I confess, that to me it appears much more susceptible of this sense than of the other. Wet. seems to have been of the same opinion. After producing many similar quotations from Grecian authors, which manifestly yield a good and apposite meaning so interpreted, he concludes with observing, "De conjectoribus et interpretibus somniorum oraculorumque dicitur." Here I cannot avoid making a few observations on the manner in which authorities are sometimes alleged by critics. They seem to think, that if the words of a quotation, taken by themselves, make sense, when interpreted in the way they propose, it is sufficient evidence that they have given the meaning of the author in that place. Now this is, in reality, no evidence at all. That such an interpretation yields a sense is one thing; that it yields the sense of the author, is another. Of two different meanings, the chief consideration which can reasonably ascertain the preference is, when one clearly suits the scope of the author and the connexion of the paragraph, and the other does not. Yet, if the sentence be considered independently, it may make sense either way explained. That this is the case with Elsner's examples, wherein the verb ovμßállε is equally capable of being translated 'to guess' as 'to understand,' I should think it losing time to illustrate. The judicious critic, when he considers the connexion, will find them, if I mistake not, more capable of being rendered in the former way than the latter. They all relate to dreams and oracles, concerning which the heathens themselves admitted that there could be no certain knowledge. I observe, 2dly, That in criticising the inspired writers, whose manner is in many respects peculiar, I should think it exceedingly obvious, that the first recourse for authorities ought to be the writer himself, or to the other sacred penmen who employ the word in question. [Diss. IV. sect. 4-8.] The only writer in the N. T. who uses the verb ovμßall is L. In five VOL. II.

43

places besides this he has employed it, but in none of the five will it admit the sense which Elsner assigns it here. The same thing may be affirmed, with truth, concerning those passages wherein it occurs in the Sep. and the Apocrypha. Need I add, that the Sy. version, which renders the word in this place Dя, perfectly agrees with the Vul. Indeed, as far as the sense is concerned, I do not recollect to have observed any difference among translators; and that even Mary did not understand every thing relating to her son, we learn from the 50th verse of this chapter. I shall only further observe in passing, (but I do not lay any stress on this as an argument), that it is not in the manner of the sacred writers to celebrate the abilities of the saints, but their virtues. Whenever they commend, they hold forth an object of imitation to their readers. The understanding of this excellent personage was merely an ability or talent; but her weighing every thing that related to this most important subject, and carefully treasuring it up in her memory, was an evidence of her piety, and of the ardent desire she had to learn the things of God. This is a thing imitable by others; but neither natural acuteness of understanding, nor supernatural gifts, can properly be objects of imitation to us.

22. "Their purification," xaqioμov avrov. E. T. "Her purification." Vul. "Purgationis ejus." In a very few Gr. copies there is a diversity of reading. The Cam. and three others of less note, for avtav read avrov, thus making it his purification.' The Com. which has in this been followed by Be. and the two printers, Plantin and Elzevir, read avtns, her. The Cop. and Ara. versions omit the pronoun altogether. Wet. has classed the Vul. as supporting the few Gr. MSS. which read avrov, his; and I cannot help thinking him in the right. Ejus is of itself equivocal, meaning either his or her. Which of the two is meant in a particular case, must always be learned from the connexion of the words. Now the pronoun is so connected here, as by the ordinary rules of interpretation, not to admit another meaning than his. Mary is not mentioned in the foregoing verse, nor even in that which preceded it. The last time she is mentioned is in ver. 19, relating to a quite different matter. Jesus is mentioned in the words immediately preceding; and the same personal pronoun occurs in the two verses, both before and after, referring to him. But the verses themselves in the Vul. will make this evident without a comment. "Et postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur puer; vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus, quod vocatum est ab angelo, priusquam in utero conciperetur. Et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis ejus secundum legem Moysi, tulerunt illum in Jerusalem, ut sisterent eum Domino." Be this, however, as it will, all the translations from the Vul. which I have seen, consider ejus as in this place feminine. Were the question what, in our judgment, the ex

pression should be, and not what it actually is, (questions often confounded by the critics), I should, for obvious reasons, strongly incline, as others have done, to read uurns, her, in preference to all other readings. But I must acknowledge, that, upon examination, it appears to be that reading which, of all those above-mentioned, has the least support from positive evidence. I should rather say, it has none at all. Not a single MS. is there, not one ancient writer, or old translation, if we except the Vul.; and how equivocal its testimony in this place is, has been shown already. For my part, I rather consider it, with Wet. as one witness for the reading in the Com. All the evidence then is reduced to Cardinal Ximenes, who will not be thought of great weight with those who consider the freedoms which he sometimes took, in order to produce in his Gr. edition a closer conformity to the Vul. Be. does not pretend the authority of his MSS. for following in this passage the Com. His only reason is the incongruity which he found in the ordinary reading, avrov. Nor is it of any weight that some printers followed, in this, his edition. Let us then consider briefly, but impartially, those apparent incongruities in the common reading which make people so unwilling to receive it. One is, it is not conformable to the style of the law of Moses on this subject. The purification after child-birth is never called the purification of the child, but of the mother. Though this is certainly true, it may be justly affirmed that it is conformable to the spirit of the law, to consider what may be called the legal state of the mother, and of the child suckled by her, as the same. Now, though the uncleanness of the mother, after bearing a male child, lasted only seven days, she remained thirty-three days longer debarred from touching any hallowed thing, or going into the sanctuary. Nor could the first-born male be legally presented to the Lord, and redeemed, till he was a month old at least. But as the time was not, like that of circumcision, fixed to a particular day, it is not unlikely that it may have been customary, because convenient, for those who lived at a distance from Jerusalem to allot the same time for purification and the redemption, (as was actually done in this case), and to consider the ceremonies in a complex view, as regarding both mother and child. The only other objection which operates powerfully against the reception of the common reading is, that it appears to attribute impurity of some kind or other to our Lord Jesus, from which he needed to be cleansed. But nothing is more certain than what is observed by Gro., that this, notwithstanding its name, implied no more than certain restraints upon the person, till after the performance of certain rites. We are apt to connect with the notion of impurity or the uncleanness described in the ceremonial law, some degree of guilt or moral pravity. But this is entirely without foundation. There was an uncleanness contracted by the touch of a dead body;